Corcoran, , R. v

When sentencing for an act tending or intended to pervert the course of justice, the court may assess the seriousness of the conduct which the offender sought to conceal. It must nevertheless sentence for the offence charged, rather than impose punishment for uncharged substantive offences. Persistent deception and evasion are serious aggravating features and may justify immediate custody. A guilty plea and other mitigation must also be given proper weight. The resulting sentence must remain proportionate to the perverting offence itself.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Cardiff to doing an act tending or intended to pervert the course of justice. After a road collision, while apparently over the alcohol limit, he gave police and hospital staff the identity of his brother-in-law. He later evaded arrest for several months.

He received 18 months’ imprisonment and a three-and-a-half-year driving disqualification. He appealed against sentence with leave of the single judge. The central issue was whether the judge had imposed an excessive sentence by appearing to punish him for dangerous driving and related motoring offences for which he had not been charged.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment was quashed and replaced with 12 months’ imprisonment.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to regard the concealed conduct as serious. It involved potential dangerous driving, driving with excess alcohol and driving without insurance. Those circumstances informed the gravity of the deception for the offence charged.

3. However, the judge should not have appeared to sentence the appellant for dangerous driving or the other substantive motoring offences. Those offences had not been charged. The proper task was to sentence for perverting the course of justice, while taking account of the seriousness of what the appellant had tried to conceal.

4. The court also gave weight to the guilty plea and the mitigation advanced. It rejected the submission that the sentence should be reduced as far as counsel proposed. The deception had been persistent: the appellant used another person’s identity, avoided arrest, gave up work and moved house. Those features justified a substantial immediate custodial sentence.

5. The court considered the sentencing comparisons in R v Wake [1999] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 403 and R v Melender [2003] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 63. They involved more serious underlying road incidents, including deaths, but supported the conclusion that the appellant’s sustained attempt to avoid responsibility remained a serious perverting offence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence in part and substituted 12 months’ imprisonment for 18 months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Cardiff: On 27 June 2005 the appellant pleaded guilty to doing an act tending or intended to pervert the course of justice. On 25 July 2005 he was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment and disqualified from driving for three-and-a-half years.